Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Amado-Cordeiro
The Federal Court of Appeal held that the word 'stay' in s.196 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act does not contemplate stays that came into effect under the Immigration Act by operation of paragraph 49(1)(b); the Court followed Medovarski and declined to depart from that precedent because there was no...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2004 FCA 120
- Parties
- Appellant: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration; Respondent: Luis Miguel Amado-Cordeiro
- Court
- Federal Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 22 March 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review Appeal (immigration) / Appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal, Judgment Delivered From the Bench
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed
- Legal Topics
- Stay, Removal Order, Transitional Provisions, Bilingual Statutory Interpretation
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Appellant
Luis Miguel Amado-Cordeiro
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Appeal (immigration) / Appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal, Judgment Delivered From the Bench
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the word 'stay' in s.196 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act contemplates a stay that came into effect under the Immigration Act by operation of paragraph 49(1)(b)
- 2 Whether this Court should depart from or follow the Medovarski decision and the principle against overruling prior decisions absent manifest error
Ratio Decidendi
The Federal Court of Appeal held that the word 'stay' in s.196 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act does not contemplate stays that came into effect under the Immigration Act by operation of paragraph 49(1)(b); the Court followed Medovarski and declined to depart from that precedent because there was no manifest error.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed
Orders
- Appeal allowed
- Answer to the certified question: No
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Amado-Cordeiro Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2004-03-22 Neutral citation 2004 FCA 120 File numbers A-359-03 Decision Content Date: 20040322 Docket: A-359-03 Citation: 2004 FCA 120 CORAM: ROTHSTEIN J.A. MALONE J.A. SHARLOW J.A. BETWEEN: THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Appellant and LUIS MIGUEL AMADO-CORDEIRO Respondent Heard at Calgary, Alberta on March 22, 2004. Judgment delivered from the Bench at Calgary, Alberta on March 22, 2004. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: SHARLOW J.A. Date: 20040322 Docket: A-359-03 Citation: 2004 FCA 120 CORAM: ROTHSTEIN J.A. MALONE J.A. SHARLOW J.A. BETWEEN: THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Appellant and LUIS MIGUEL AMADO-CORDEIRO Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the Bench at Calgary, Alberta, on March 22, 2004) SHARLOW J.A. [1] This is an appeal of a decision of the Federal Court, reported asAmado-Cordeiro v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2003] F.C.J. No. 1087 (QL), granting an application for judicial review of a decision of the Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board to discontinue Mr. Amado-Cordeiro's appeal from a removal order. The Judge certified the following question: Does the word "stay" in section 196 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, contemplate a stay that came into effect under the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2 as a result of the operation of paragraph 49(1)(b)? [2] In a recent decision of this Court, that question was answered in the negative: Medovarski v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2004] F.C.J. No. 366 (QL) (F.C.A.). The majority and dissenting reasons in that case, as well as numerous decisions of the Federal Court that reached the same conclusion as the dissent, disclose a debate about a difficult question of statutory interpretation, involving both the English and French versions of the relevant statutory provisions. [3] This Court has adopted the principle that it will not overrule its own prior decisions in the absence of manifest error: Miller v. Canada (Attorney General), [2002] F.C.J. No. 1375 (QL), (2002), 220 D.L.R. (4th) 149, 293 N.R. 391 (F.C.A.); leave to appeal denied, [2002] S.C.C.A. No. 505 (QL). We are all of the view that there is no such error in Medovarski. [4] For that reason, this appeal will be allowed. The answer to the certified question is no. "Karen R. Sharlow" J. A. FEDERAL COURT NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-359-03 STYLE OF CAUSE: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration v. Luis Miguel Amado-Cordeiro PLACE OF HEARING: Calgary, Alberta DATE OF HEARING: March 22, 2004 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY : Sharlow, J.A. DATED: March 22, 2004 APPEARANCES: Ms. Tracy J. King FOR APPELLANT Mr. Edward Washington FOR RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Morris A. Rosenberg Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR APPELLANT Brunnen Law Offices FOR RESPONDENT Calgary, Alberta